• Dr. Patrick Clawson admits ‘false-flag’ operations have become the American way

By Mark Anderson

A recent speech by a prominent think-tankwarmonger strongly suggests the restlessforeign policy community disdains peacewith Iran and is angling for a “false-flag” event to provoke a war with a nationthat has done nothing to theUnited States.

On the Internet, policy expertDr. Patrick Clawson casts asidethe dry narrative that characterizestypical meetings of major foreign policy “advisory” organizations.As if to throw cold water onhis stuffy listeners at a meeting of the stridentlypro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Clawson openly argues for false-flag tacticsto spark a war with Iran—which fits neatly into the “clash of civilizations” world crusade that mostwell-connected policy planners endlessly promote.

“We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that,” Clawsonsaid—not “advocating” but still “suggesting” an illegal false-flag strategy, while speaking in a hurried,almost hyper tone. “But I’m just suggesting thatthis is not an either-or proposition—that . . . sanctions have to succeed or otherthings [have to succeed]. We are inthe game of using covert meansagainst the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”

While also saying, “I franklythink that crisis-initiation is reallytough”—note the words “crisis initiation”—Clawson added, “and it’svery hard for me to see how the U.S. president can get us to war with Iran—whichleads me to conclude that if in fact compromise isnot coming, then the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.”That “traditional way,” he said in a barely crypticmanner, is on the basis of terrible “incidents” that catapult a reluctant nation into all-out war.

“Some people might think that Mr. Rooseveltwanted to get us into World War II . . . and you mayrecall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor,” Clawsonsaid. “Some people might think Woodrow Wilson wanted to get us into WWI, [and] you might recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think Mr. [Lyndon] Johnson wantedto send troops to Vietnam; you may recall he hadto wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode.”

Clawson added: “We didn’t go to war with Spain until the Maine exploded.” He even suggested thealleged Southern attack on Fort Sumter to spark the Civil War was engineered by the North andblamed on the Confederates.

Especially notable was his comment: “So if infact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, itwould be best if somebody else started the war. . . . [W]e could step up the pressure. I mean, look, people, Iranian submarines periodically go down.Someday one of them might not come up. Who would know why?”

And this comes as a presidential election nearswhich, by the time some read this, could have puta GOP warmonger in the White House,while the corporate media continue alleging Iran is hell bent to build “the bomb” and that Iran canonly “negotiate” by ending its nuclear energy program altogether, even if it’s for peaceful purposes.Anything less than that, most U.S. pundits intone,is belligerence deserving of a U.S. and Israeli military strike. That was the exact framework ofCNN’s intermittent analysis during the last debatebetween President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, when foreign policy was the main topic.

Especially notable was that Clawson spoke ofthese past events as if it’s self-evident that theywere all false-flag, or trumped up, catastrophes tointentionally bring about American involvement in war. Largely gone was the conventional pretense—pushed for countless decades in schools, collegesand the media—that such events were more or lessrandomized acts of violence carried out only bythe culprits named in mainstream history books.

The real, little-known history of intrigue, deception and conspiracy—where, for example, a nationlike the U.S. provoked Japan into attackingPearl Harbor and helped ensure the tragic, deadly event had maximum impact—including the needlessmurder of 2,459 men, women and children, as well as the loss of two battleships and 169 aircraft.

Clawson’s background suggests his words carrytragic weight. He directs the Iran Security Initiative.Moreover, he is “widely consulted as an analyst and media commentator [and] . . . is the author or editorof 18 books or studies on Iran,” WINEP’s websitenotes. “He has also testified before congressional committees more than 20 times and hasserved as an expert witness in more than 30 federalcases against Iran. Prior to joining [WINEP] he was a senior research professor at the National DefenseUniversity’s Institute for National Strategic Studies,a senior economist at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and a research scholar atthe Foreign Policy Research Institute.”